That is now irrelevant.

Based on current forecasts, by the Turnbull Government, Australia will be in surplus in about 9 years.

At least he has a plan to achieve it. Shorten on the other hand has made 100 billion worth of empty and unfunded promises.

He's just being silly.

When you got no argument, you just try to deflect.

He probably knows the sources but is just being a smart arse little dweeb.

"The Budget will be back in surplus in the first year of a Liberal Government & every year after that" - Joe Hockey January 2013 (8 months out from the election)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbotts-about-face-on-surplus-guarantee-20130127-2dfn9.html

That is completely irrelevant. The Turnbull Government is not bound by Abbott and most of the budget measures which would have delivered savings were never passed by the Senate.

Turnbull has specifically outlined the forward projections which suggest the surplus will be achieved in 9 years.

They have already reduced the deficit from 3.7% of GDP to below 2% of GDP. That is pretty good!

Edited by Aikhme: 9/5/2016 01:21:22 PM

Such a simple request yet it was hand waved away.

A-grade trolling rusty. =d> It'd be nice to have a proper discussion about these sorts of topics but I know it's too much to ask on here.

No I am sorry, but no one is obligated to do the work for you or to educate you about LNP policy.

Everything is available on the net. Google it and you will get everything you need. Don't be lazy or smart please!

It's certainly what I want to hear, not lazy rhetoric. Unfortunately I think we're in the minority :(

Incredible.

Why? Is he incapable of Googling?

It's why I don't bother with him, ain't got time for that crap :lol:

Edited by mcjules: 9/5/2016 01:41:02 PM

That too.

Nearly floored me when I saw the costs for the Union representation @ work.

No thanks.

-PB

So it's the Navy's fault then?

-PB

It doesn't matter if you arguing about politics or anything for that matter, if you are going to use statistics you must use sources to cite them so they support your argument or else it looks like you're talking bs. It's not up to McJules to find them.

What a crock. When Howard left government Australia's fiscal position was one of the strongest in the developed world, with ZERO net debt. When the GFC hit Labor leveraged our zero net debt position it inherited from the liberal party to buy ourselves out of a recession. While spending shot up, revenue came falling down, and this is the genesis of the structural deficit. Revenue never quite recovered enough to meet Labors increased spending trajectory, and this deficit was further widened when Labor legislated new social expenditure programs such as Gosnki and NDIS while badly overestimating in the intake from resources revenues, which collapsed badly. Furthermore, and probably Labors worst error is they failed to transition Australian from a mining dependent economy to a more diverse one, which is what Turnbull is trying to do now. By the time Abbott won power the previous government has already to and legislated for increased spending trajectory while resources revenue continued to decline. Spending by the current Liberal government has actually been quite restrained, the main spending increase under their watch was legislated by the previous government and left for the current government to foot the bill. It's all in the budget papers if you don't believe, but I suppose in your case it's easier to side with "independent economic experts" who side with your view rather than do any research yourself.

The difference in the rhetoric between the LNP and the ALP is large. The difference in the actual policies implemented is only a matter of degree.

Carping that either the LNP or the ALP will doom us to catastrophic economic outcomes is stupid and inaccurate.

Facts are facts:

Howard and Costello caused a structural deficit through whittling away the tax base by over-relying on mining tax revenues.

ALP came in and faced the GFC. They went on a spending spree, and it was good they did. The policy has been praised by the IMF and World Bank. But governments don't get credited for disasters averted, do they?

Was there waste? Yes. But that completely misses the point, which is that they wanted to get money out in the economy as quickly as possible to avert recession.

Did they spend for too long? In hindsight you could make that argument to some degree. But we were dealing with an unprecedented crisis.

The other issue is that taxation revenue is historically low. We do have a medium-long term spending issue, but we definitely have a revenue issue.

The carbon tax was a rational policy, which brought in a one-off 9% increase in prices. The 30% increases some have talked about have nothing to do with the carbon tax, and much more to do with the perverse incentives govts of both sides have created for electricity companies to upgrade their infrastructure, and pass on costs to the consumer.

It's not the end of the world no matter who wins. Rein the rhetoric in kiddies.

=d> =d> =d> =d> =d>

You know it's going to fall on deaf ears though. :roll:

Are you kidding? ALP was in power for only a year when the GFC hit!

Howard was in power for 11 years, rolling in oceans of mining royalties. He doesn't take any responsibility for preparing the economy to transition????

It's much easier to prepare for the transition when you are rolling in cash, than after the crash has come and revenue has collapsed.

Honestly, you are having a larf. You cannot be taken seriously on this point.

As Bill Shorten has highlighted, its quite sad that Turncoat has barley made mention of climate change in his public addresses.
An unwillingness to address global warming, through measures such as an ETS, lumps our economy with massive structural costs in the long term. Turncoat buries his head as much as the other science denying creationists in his party. And our economy suffers & skyrockets the debt even further than the damage they have inflicted on it since 2013

I have provided a lot of substance in this thread. You have provided nothing but rhetoric.

Don't get confused. You disagree with me, and don't like my direct nature and are incapable of countering it. Dismissing it as "crap" is very arrogant of you and just confirms your small-mindedness.

What do you expect Howard/Costello do. Even with the tax cuts, we were still ranked among the most highly taxed in the OECD. We still are today. Therefore, we have an expenditure issue more than anything else.

But we were not referring to the Stimulus package. Yes granted, it was a good policy in the most part but some of the spending was wasteful.

But now we have an expenditure issue. With bracket creep, the Australian Government has collected a record $380 billion in tax revenue. The issue is, that our expenditures have excalated. this is what the LNP are going to try to address. The Labout in contrast has made 100 billion in promises, will abolish negative gearing and increase taxes. This is not a good recipe.

Turnbull deserves at least another term to show us what he can do.

We are not ranked as one of the most highly taxed countries in the world. That is just rubbish. The best and most straightforward way to compare countries is looking at what % of GDP tax take makes up. We are in the middle to low end.

We may have a relatively higher company tax, but don't forget that we do not charge employers levies to pay for social security or healthcare obligations, as a lot of other countries do.

In terms of overall tax revenue, we do not highly tax the economy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

Out total tax take as a % of GDP is just under 26%.

France - 44.6%
Germany - 40.6%
UK - 39.0%
OECD average - 34.8%
NZ - 34.5%
Brazil - 34.4%
Canada - 32.2%
Greece - 30.0%
Japan - 28.3%
USA - 26.9%
South Korea - 26.8%
AUSTRALIA - 25.8%
China - 22.0%
Mexico - 19.7%
Russia - 19.5%
India - 17.7%

What Howard should have done is use the excess revenues to invest in infrastructure, or start funding the transition from a mining-based economy, like you suggested Gillard and Rudd should have.

They did set up a sovereign wealth fund, which I give them credit for, but they could have deposited a lot more in it.

They could have done more to top up superannuation accounts - they did for a while have a like-for-like contribution arrangement which was good.

Overall they did not do horribly. But it was a massive problem to undermine the structure of the tax system like they did.

So much was squandered.

Almost approaching peak Trident/Ricecrackers here.

-PB

I don't want to ad hominem so I'll bite my tongue...

Are people seeing corflutes in their cities already too or is it just an Adelaide thing atm triggered by Pyne's "premature erection"? Apparently they shouldn't be up for another week until the writs are issued.

None around here yet, but the election ads have started and I already want to shoot myself. Never have I been so "meh" about who wins an election

I'm not talking about tax as a ratio of GDP.

Since we have one of the largest GDPs in the world, and a low tax base, of course the ratio of tax to GDP will give you skewed results.

I am talking about the tax rate. Our tax rates, are among the highest on the planet.

http://ceoworld.biz/2015/10/20/top-25-countries-with-the-highest-individual-income-tax-rates-in-the-world-2015

Well, he is arrogant. Fancy dismissing posts as crap. Deplorable behavior from someone who likes to portray themselves as balanced and "intelligent".

Edited by Aikhme: 9/5/2016 03:41:12 PM

Rolling in oceans of mining royalties:lol:

The mining boom started in 2005 the best of the mining booms years were under the Gillard/Rudd governments, even during and post GFC. They had six years to reform the economy and did nothing. Six years to reform, six years of nothing. They could've wound back expenditure, instead they actually increased it, predicated on a mining and resources boom that was apparently to going to last forever.

The laying the structural deficit blame at the feet of the Howard government is a clear case of passing the buck. I can't anyone would be stupid enough to fall for it. :lol: Howard and Costello were outstanding economic managers and the proof is in the pudding. It takes a fair bit or mental gymnastics and data manipulation to suggest otherwise.

What absolute rubbish. I am old enough to remember the newspaper articles published after the last couple of Howard budgets, some of which were prescient enough to raise alarm bells.

Why do you think the ALP Super Profits tax raised nothing - there were no more super profits.

Those figures don't paint the full picture. Firstly businesses are "taxed" a minimum 9.5% superannuation levy on wages, this could easily be added to the "tax mix" but isn't. Secondly Australia has one of the highest income tax free thresholds in the world, we have comparatively low sales tax (10% as opposed to some countries which have 25%), and one of the most progressive tax collection and transfer arrangements in the world, basically a robin hood style of redistribution where nearly all the tax is collected from the top 20% and given to the bottom 20%. The bottom 50% pay little or no net tax.

Our income taxes are actually very high once you start earning above a certain amount, with little benefit flowing from the taxes we pay. They may be nominally higher in other countries but there's much broader redistribution for high incomes earners and companies, such as in places like Sweden where people pay high taxes but if they become unemployed can continue to claim to their income from the government.

That makes no sense. Why are you only focussing on individual income tax rates, as opposed to taxation as a whole?

You have to look at the whole picture, not isolate one form of taxation (eg personal income tax).

We have lower GST rates than many other countries, and many loopholes around property related tax.

So we are more reliant than other countries on personal income tax.

You are arguing that we are overtaxed as a country. We are not. If you want to argue that our tax-mix is wrong, and we need to adjust the mix to increase property taxes, GST, and reduce income tax, then make that argument.



What the hell are you talking about? The list I gave you has many countries with far higher GDP than us, that tax a higher % of their economy than we do - including the USA.

Our tax take is lower than the OECD average.

Even if you look at personal income tax only, the very article you posted puts Australia at the bottom half of the list - 17th out of 25 countries!

Edited by AzzaMarch: 9/5/2016 04:05:13 PM